| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
American Techpusher
Posting Mania
604 Posts |
|
|
demonbane
Posting Profoundly
164 Posts |
 Posted - 04/18/2004 : 02:38:19 AM
|
| While the topic is certainly interesting, I'm not planning on registering for yet another forum. However, having listened to those two samples, I actually HEAR a difference between the two. This is surprising given the rate at which they were encoded. But the OGG definitely has a more rounded-out sound (I can make out more distinct bass on the OGG) as well as less distortion. (The 'distorted' speaking sounds better on the OGG IMO.) However, this can't be quite a fair comparison without a baseline to comapare it against. A better comparison would have been say, a 30 second clip of this song done in Ogg Vorbis, VBR MP3, and WAV (or FLAC). That way we could compare the original more accurately to the compressed version. |
Your quick response to this post: (2 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
 |
|
|
American Techpusher
Posting Mania
604 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2004 : 02:43:42 AM
|
Thanks for listing and your opinion...
I think I will make a wav and wma and put them up there.
Hope change your mind and post your reply in the forum as well. ( we don't record emails or anything like that )
update: wma and flac file are up. ( Flac is 27mb )
Keith
www.talkingmp3.com |
Edited by - American Techpusher on 04/18/2004 03:06:50 AM |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
rocketman768
Posting is for Closers
27 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2004 : 9:51:57 PM
|
| Wow, I was surprised too. Although it'd be considered minor to most people, the biggest difference I hear b/w the ogg and mp3 files are that the mp3 files tend to make high pitched sounds like cymbals sound watery or metallicky. I dunno how to describe it. Also, the mp3 seems to do something funky with the snare drum. To me, it sounds like almost like many tiny imperceptible breaks in the sound of the snare. As for the bass, I guess my ears are not as sensitive there, but mine have been tested at 13 dB more sensitive in the ranges above 12 kHz. The ogg file seems to make the cymbals seem softer and more like original, although not perfect. I just HATE that watery sound though. It gets under your skin. Also, the higher frequencies with mp3's tend to sound a lot more whiney than do ogg's. Ogg is just more fat overall. Although barely noticeable to me, I hear a slight tinning of the vocals in mp3. That's all I have to say about that. |
Your quick response to this post: (1 total votes)
I agree (100%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
American Techpusher
Posting Mania
604 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2004 : 07:51:14 AM
|
Thanks Rocketman..
I think the ogg sounds better myself, but I don't think ogg saves any more space then mp3..
Please post your reply in talkingmp3.com as well if you get the time.
Keith
www.talkingmp3.com |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
carsten(at)xiph.org
Just Posting
3 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2004 : 11:59:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by TalkingMP3.com
...but I don't think ogg saves any more space then mp3..
Of course you're not going to save any space with Ogg over MP3 when you encode both at the same bitrate! The bitrate is a measure of the file size per second of music, so by requesting the same bitrate, you're requesting the same (or comparable) file size. (Update: I had assumed that both files were encoded to 256kbps, but after downloading the files, it turns out that the Ogg is actually bigger, because the MP3 averages only 192kbps.)
To test the space savings, you'd have to encode to Oggs at smaller and smaller bitrates, until the quality is comparable to MP3. Depending on your taste, this might be as little as half the size of the MP3.
You could also shoot for a middle ground and get files that sound better than MP3 but that are still smaller than MP3.
Hope this helps,
Carsten Haese.
|
Edited by - carsten(at)xiph.org on 04/28/2004 12:07:01 PM |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
8thNote
Posting Mania
258 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2004 : 2:47:59 PM
|
I did a test on a couple files last week and found Ogg Q6 to be comparable to 192 kbps VBR MP3. However, the Ogg made a great car insurance commercial. I saved about 10–15% 6n each file. (Now I know why that one Neuros-member says that in his sig.)
Listening to those clips (as much as I hate rock music), I did find the Ogg to be richer and fuller even on my cheap Jensen earphones.
Daniel J. Lewis |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
Lou Erickson
Posting Mania
528 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2004 : 3:50:50 PM
|
Using good earphones, and/or a good sound card if you're not using your Neuros, you'll hear even more difference, naturally.
Myself, I use Ogg set to be about the same size as MP3, but the higher quality means I can listen to the music without wincing. I hate the way MP3's usually sound. You can use a higher bit-rate, but you get big files.
My housemates use Oggs that are about the same quality as MP3, but that same percentage smaller. With enough music, it adds up all right.
If the Neuros supported FLAC, there's a good chance I'd re-encode all my music with it. (This would be the third time I'd gone through the whole collection... *sigh* )
|
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
American Techpusher
Posting Mania
604 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2004 : 4:35:56 PM
|
I changed from all mp3 to Ogg myself.
Thanks guys for you input,, please post in talkingmp3 if you can find the time..
Keith
www.talkingmp3.com |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
nxg125
Posting Mania
310 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2004 : 5:22:58 PM
|
quote:
I changed from all mp3 to Ogg myself.
Looks like you better change your screen name too then
--Nick
|
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
American Techpusher
Posting Mania
604 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2004 : 04:18:22 AM
|
Funny you should say that NXG125.
Just waitning for the domain talkingoggvorbis.com to go live as we own that as well.
So going to change the graphics on the fourm to talkingmps and talkingoggvorbis.
Excellent thinking NXG..
Keith Ashwood
American Techpushers
Keith@americantechpushers.com
www.talkingmp3.com |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
|
rocketman768
Posting is for Closers
27 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2004 : 2:48:08 PM
|
To see mp3's limits, you should see how crappy any kind of metal or punk or this new punk crap sounds at so-called "CD quality" (128-160 kbps). It fails miserably there in my opinion. Other newer formats like ogg and wma seem tons better there. With some songs, you can almost turn it down to 96 kbps for ogg.
Talkingmp3, you should do a study between formats at your site. There's a great tool out there for blind-rating audio files. It's called "ABC Hidden Reference". Although you do have to decode the files back to wave, it lets you listen to up to 8 files in a session with one being the original wav. You can also switch between versions of the song at the same point in the song as another. This can really bring out differences in formats. It also gives the user a slider-style rating system by which they can make a text file with their ratings on it and send it to you. If you can't find it online, I can hook you up. Just let me know. |
Edited by - rocketman768 on 04/29/2004 2:49:25 PM |
Your quick response to this post: (0 total votes)
I agree (0%)
I disagree (0%) |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
